Journal of Process Control 16 (2006) 499509

www.elsevier.com/locate/jprocont

An alternative structure for next generation regulatory controllers

Part I: Basic theory for design, development and implementation
Babatunde A. Ogunnaike *, Kapil Mukati
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA
Received 16 August 2004; received in revised form 2 June 2005; accepted 1 August 2005

Abstract
Even though employed widely in industrial practice, the popular PID controller has weaknesses that limit its achievable performance,
and an intrinsic structure that makes tuning not only more complex than necessary, but also less transparent with respect to the key
attributes of the overall controller performance, namely: robustness, set-point tracking, and disturbance rejection. In this paper, we propose an alternative control scheme that combines the simplicity of the PID controller with the versatility of model predictive control
(MPC) while avoiding the tuning problems associated with both. The tuning parameters of the proposed control scheme are related
directly to the controller performance attributes; they are normalized to lie between 0 and 1; and they arise naturally from the formulation in a manner that makes it possible to tune the controller directly for each performance attribute independently. The result is a
controller that can be designed and implemented much more directly and transparently, and one that outperforms the classical PID controller both in set-point tracking and disturbance rejection while using precisely the same process reaction curve information required to
tune PID controllers. The design, implementation and performance of the controller are demonstrated via simulation on a nonlinear
polymerization process.

2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Regulatory control; SISO controller design; PID control; Controller tuning; Model predictive control

1. Introduction
The PID controller is by far the most commonly used
controller in industrial practice. Based on a survey of the
status of industrial process controllers, Desborough and
Miller [1] estimated that 98% of the controllers in a median chemical plant are PID controllers. Furthermore, it is
estimated that there are perhaps only 510% of control
loops for which a typical practitioner will not consider
applying the basic single input, single output (SISO) PID
control strategy [2]. The popularity of the PID controller
is normally attributed to its simple structure and ease of
implementation in hardware and software. However, the
PID controller structureeven the digital implementationis based on century-old concepts that were dictated
*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 302 831 4504; fax: +1 302 831 1048.
E-mail address: ogunnaike@che.udel.edu (B.A. Ogunnaike).

0959-1524/$ - see front matter
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jprocont.2005.08.001

by the limitations imposed by the technology of the time

(mechanical addition and multiplication of signals).
Even though versatile, the popular PID controller has
weaknesses that limit its achievable performance especially
on dead-time dominant, inverse response and nonlinear
processes. Its intrinsic structure also makes tuning arguably more complex than necessary, and denitely less
transparent, because there is no direct relationship between
the PID tuning parameters and the three critical controller
performance attributes of robustness, set-point tracking
and disturbance rejection. Tuning the PID controller to
achieve desired performance in each of these attributes
independently is therefore not straightforward. (It is a
well-known fact that one cannot tune a PID controller to
achieve good set-point tracking and disturbance rejection
simultaneously.)
The extent of the diculty encountered in tuning PID
controllers and the resulting consequences are highlighted

500

B.A. Ogunnaike, K. Mukati / Journal of Process Control 16 (2006) 499509

in the report by Van Overschee and De Moor [3] where it is

noted that 80% of industrial PID controllers are poorly
tuned; 30% of these PID loops operate in manual mode;
and 25% of the PID loops in automatic mode operate
under default factory settings. Similar numbers were reported by Ender [4]. This is despite the fact that more than
200 tuning methods are available for PID controllers,
including procedures such as gain scheduling, adaptive
control, relay-based auto-tuning [5], iterative feedback
tuning [6], and several others [710].
Available alternatives to the PID controller (such as
fuzzy control [11], general linear control, and state feedback
and observers [12]), provide better performance but at
the expense of sacricing simplicity. These alternatives are
also more dicult to tune than the simple PID controller
and often require considerable expertise in control theory.
Model predictive control (MPC), the other industrially
popular control scheme [13,14], is mainly used for complex
multivariable constrained processes. It is often implemented in supervisory mode hierarchically above the base
regulatory PID controllers. Thus, even the performance
of MPC depends, to a large extent, on the eectiveness of
the primary-level PID control loops that must implement
the control commands determined by the more sophisticated, higher-level MPC. However, MPC tuning parameters are themselves dicult to choose due to the control
schemes complex structure.
It is therefore not surprising that interest in the development of alternatives to the PID controller has been growing
in recent years [1519]. In this paper, we present an alternative basic SISO regulatory controller that takes proper
advantage of modern digital electronic technology to overcome the weaknesses of the PID controller. The proposed
RTD-A1 controller, consists of a judiciously simplied linear model predictive control scheme that makes use of precisely the same process reaction curve information required
for tuning PID controllers. In addition, its three primary
tuning parameters, hR, hT, and hD, are not only related directly to the attributes of robustness, set-point tracking (or
trajectory following), and disturbance rejection, they are
also normalized to lie between 0 and 1. An auxiliary fourth
parameter, hA, related to the overall controller aggressiveness, arises from the model predictive formulation independently of the three main tuning parameters; it is also
normalized between 0 and 1.
This paper is organized as follows. The development of
the strategy is discussed in Section 2, where we show
how the normalized tuning parameters arise naturally from
the formulation in a manner that makes it possible to tune
directly for each performance attribute independently. In
Section 3, we demonstrate via simulation that the tuning
parameters are in fact related directly to the controller
performance attributes. The design, implementation and

performance of the proposed controller are then illustrated

via simulation on a nonlinear polymerization process. The
paper concludes by summarizing the key features of the
proposed controller and future work.
2. The RTD-A control scheme
The proposed control scheme consists of the following
three components:
(1) process output prediction,
(2) model prediction update,
(3) control action computation,
around which the ensuing discussion is organized.
2.1. Process output prediction
2.1.1. Basic model form
A number of important methods for tuning PID controllers are based on characterizing the process dynamics
by a steady state gain K, an eective time constant s, and
an eective dead-time a. Therefore, even though any other
model form could be used to describe the actual process
dynamics, we consider that the actual process behavior
can be reasonably described by a rst-order-plus-dead-time
(FOPDT) model given by
ys

Ke
as
us
ss 1

where y represents the process output and u is the process

input. Since the proposed control scheme makes use of digital technology, the derivations to follow will be based on
the equivalent discretized model given by
^y k 1 a^y k buk
m;

k 0; 1; 2; . . .

where
Dt

a e
s



Dt
b K 1
e
s

a
m round
Dt

and Dt is the sampling time. It should therefore be noted

that the basic requirement for the proposed RTD-A controller is precisely the same information required for tuning
classical PID controllers.
2.1.2. Output prediction
A prediction of the process output m time steps into the
future is obtained from Eq. (2) as
^y k m 1 am1 ^y k blk; m buk

where
1

RTD-A: Robustness, Tracking, Disturbance rejectionoverall

Aggressiveness.

lk; m

m
X
i1

ai uk
i

B.A. Ogunnaike, K. Mukati / Journal of Process Control 16 (2006) 499509

represents the m-term weighted sum of previous control actions taken during the delay period m. Note that Eq. (4)
now explicitly contains u(k), the current control action. If
we now require that from the current time step onwards,
and over the next N-step horizon, only one control move,
u(k), is allowed, i.e.,
uk i uk;

i 1; 2; . . . ; N

then the expression for the predicted process output over

the next N-step horizon beyond the delay period can be obtained as
^y k m i ami ^y k ai
1 blk; m bgi uk;
7

16i6N
where

501

error therefore could be due to any of the following components: parametric uncertainty arising from wrongly estimating a0, b0, m0 as a, b, m respectively; structural uncertainty
arising because the dynamics represented by dS(k) is absent
from our simplistic model (2); unmodelled disturbances because dD(k), assumed to be unmeasurable, is excluded from
the model; and random measurement noise.
By subtracting Eq. (2) from (10) and recalling the denition of the model error in (9), we obtain:
ek 1 aek Dayk Dbuk
m bDuk
m
dS k dD k nk
11
where
Da a0
a
Db b0
b

1
ai
gi
1
a

Duk
m uk
m0
uk
m

In principle, this sequence of N equations can be used to

compute the control move required to bring the predicted
process output as close to the given reference trajectory
as possible; but rst this prediction must be updated to include the eect of unmeasured disturbances, and other
sources of modeling error.

with the last equation arising as a result of errors in the

time delay.
The contributions due to parametric uncertainty can be
consolidated as

2.2. Model prediction update

ek 1 aek dP k dS k dD k nk
aek dB k dR k

The approach by which the basic model prediction obtained in Eq. (7) is updated using available process measurements is a key dierentiator of this control strategy
from other model predictive control schemes; it will therefore be described in some detail.
2.2.1. Modeling error characterization
A simplistic FOPDT model (or any other model for that
matter) cannot be expected to represent the true process
dynamics perfectly; but the typical modeling error obtained
from available plant data, y(k), as
ek yk
^y k

is a combination of several apparently inseparable components. Our approach requires rst, a careful characterization of the various components that contribute to the
observed modeling error, to provide the basis for a judicious estimation of what can realistically be estimated.
We consider the nominal model given in Eq. (2) to be an
approximation of the unknown reality given by
yk 1 a0 yk b0 uk
m0 dS k dD k nk
10
where a0, b0 and m0 represent the true, but unknown,
parameters associated with the rst-order portion of the
true process dynamics; dS represents the higher order, possibly nonlinear, process dynamics; dD represents the
unmodelled external disturbances; and n is the random
measurement noise component. The observed modeling

dP k Dayk Dbuk
m bDuk
m

12

to obtain the operating model error equation as

13
14

where all the bias-inducing components have been consolidated into dB(k), leaving dR(k) as the non-biasing residual.
2.2.2. Model error resolution
We now resolve the model error e(k) into two components, em(k) and eD(k), according to
ek em k eD k

15

and decompose Eq. (14) so that each component is given

by
em k 1 aem k dR k
eD k 1 aeD k dB k

16
17

Observe therefore that according to this decomposition,

em(k) represents the observable eect of the non-biasing
residual aspects of inherent model uncertainties, as opposed to eD(k) which represents the eect of all biasinducing aspects, including, unmodelled disturbances. This
distinction is crucial as the two components are fundamentally dierent and, in principle, should not be lumped together: em(k) is the portion of the model error, e(k), that
is characterized by a zero-mean value, whose variance r2m
is indicative of the models intrinsic integrity; it cannot
(and should not) be used to update the model prediction.
Conversely, eD(k) is the portion of the model error that
must be used to update the model prediction to avoid permanent bias: by estimating its true value appropriately, and
using the estimate judiciously, permanent bias in the model
predictions may be eliminated.

502

B.A. Ogunnaike, K. Mukati / Journal of Process Control 16 (2006) 499509

This leads to an update strategy in which eD(k) is estimated as ^eD k from the available model error e(k) such
that the expected value of the complementary component,
em(k), is required to be exactly zero. From here, the model
prediction update strategy consists of two parts:
(1) Current disturbance eect estimation: obtaining from
e(k), an estimate of eD(k), the current disturbance
eect as ^eD k, and
(2) Future disturbance eect predictions: using ^eD k to
obtain ^eD k j j k, the prediction of the future values of the disturbance eect over the extended horizon j = 1, 2, . . . , N.
2.2.3. Current disturbance eect estimation
From the preceding discussion, we state the disturbance
eect estimation problem formally as follows:
Given e(k), estimate eD(k) such that em(k) has a mean
value of zero.
Probabilistic descriptions: we employ the following probabilistic descriptions to characterize the uncertainty associated with the various components of this estimation
problem:
(1) The belief in the integrity of the nominal model is
quantied by a probability density function (pdf)
for em(k) having a zero mean (by denition) and
variance r2m . A reasonably objective estimate of r2m
can be obtained from the nominal modeling exercise.
In general, the greater the inherent model uncertainties, the higher the value of r2m ; the converse is also
true.
(2) The composite dynamic behavior of the bias-inducing
component (including unmodelled disturbances) is
considered to evolve according to the following stochastic process:
dB k dB k
1 wk

18

where w(k) is a zero-mean white noise sequence. This

random-walk model is the simplest of the class of
martingales, a generally accepted and non-restrictive
model that has been used successfully to represent
generic drifting (non-stationary) characteristics of unknown process dynamics.
(3) Even though dB(k) is non-stationary, the rst dierence $dB(k) is stationary since:
rdB k dB k
dB k
1 wk

19

From Eq. (17), the rst dierence of eD(k), ($eD(k) =

eD(k)
eD(k
1)), is given by
reD k 1 areD k wk

20

$eD(k) therefore exhibits a stationary AR(1) behavior (for jaj < 1) with an expected value of zero [20].
The behavior of the composite disturbance eect

may therefore be characterized by a probability distribution on $eD(k) having zero mean and a variance
m 2.
Bayesian estimation: it is now important to observe that
there are two ways by which eD(k) can be estimated:
(i) From the plant/model mismatch characteristics in
Eq. (15), as ^eD k Eek. This follows directly
from the denition of em(k) and the requirement that
E[em(k)] = 0.
(ii) From the characteristics of the unmodelled disturbances where, as established above, $eD(k), dened
as
reD k eD k
eD k
1

21

has zero mean, in which case, ^eD k EreD k

EeD k
1 EeD k
1.
Whenever an estimation problem is such that both prior
knowledge (in this case eD(k
1)) and current information
(in this case e(k)) are available for estimating the same
quantity, the problem is perfectly suited for the Bayesian
approach which provides a systematic methodology for
combining prior information with current data to estimate
unknown parameters (in this case eD(k)). However, the
Bayesian approach requires complete probability distribution functions for eD(k
1) and e(k); but only means and
variances of the distributions for em(k) and $dD(k) are
available. To specify complete probability distribution
functions for such variables, it is customary to employ
the Maximally Unpresumptive Distribution Theorem [21],
which states:
Given a random variable X whose mean l and variance
r2 are known but the complete probability distribution is not, the probability density function that adds
the least amount of extraneous information to what is
legitimately known is the normal distribution, i.e.,
X  Nl; r2 .
Thus, for the purpose of estimating eD(k), we consider
that:
(1) The sampling distribution for em(k) is given by
N0; r2m

22

and since e(k) = eD(k) + em(k), so that E[e(k)] =

eD(k) this translates to a sampling distribution for
e(k) (given data, and hence eD(k)) given by
NeD k; r2m

23

(2) The prior for eD(k) is obtained from the distribution

on $eD(k):
N0; m2

24

B.A. Ogunnaike, K. Mukati / Journal of Process Control 16 (2006) 499509

so that from the denition of $eD(k), this translates

to p0(eD(k)), the prior distribution for eD(k) as
2

NeD k
1; m

25

The prior and the sampling distributions for eD(k) can

now be combined according to Bayes theorem to obtain
the maximum a`-posteriori (MAP) estimate [22] of eD(k) as
^eD k hR^eD k
1 1
hR ek

26

where
hR

r2m
r2m m2

27

Observe that this intuitively appealing result represents a

discrete rst order ltering operation on the modeling error, e(k). The associated parameter, hR, is naturally scaled
to lie between 0 and 1; its value is close to 1 (heavy ltering)
when r2m  m2 , i.e., when model integrity is doubtful, and
its value is close to 0 when r2m  m2 , i.e., when the nominal
model represents the process quite well.
By observing that closed-loop stability is strongly
aected by the intrinsic model integrity, and that the swiftness with which the control system responds to e(k) is
determined by the degree of ltering on e(k) (i.e., what fraction of e(k) is due to model uncertainty or external disturbances), which, in turn, is determined by the parameter hR,
we see that hR is in fact a parameter that provides a means
for tuning directly for robustness. By choosing a hR value
close to 1, we opt for giving up performance (i.e., swift
action to the observed error) for robustness; conversely,
by choosing a value close to 0 we opt for performance at
the risk of making the system more susceptible to robustness problems. (Note: the extreme values of hR = 0 and 1
are physically meaningless, since the former implies perfect
model representation (r2m 0) and the latter implies innite process ignorance (r2m 1) and/or perfect knowledge
of the future time evolution of eD(k) (m2 = 0). In practice,
one choice leads to severe robust stability problems, while
the other leads to permanent steady state osets.)

the desired predictions are obtained as

^eD k j j k ^eD k a a2 a3 . . . aj r^eD k;
m16j6mN
31
which, provided 0 < jaj < 1, converges to give:
a
^eD k j j k ^eD k
1
aj r^eD k;
1
a
m16j6mN

32

In practice, the correlation structure of the dB(k) sequence may be more complicated than that of the convenient random walk process, with the net implication that
the operating equation for the evolution of the composite
disturbance eect, Eq. (20), should contain additional
dynamics. However, in the absence of further legitimate
information for objectively introducing structural modications to this equation, we retain the structure, but replace
the xed parameter a with a tuning parameter, (1
hD)
so that Eq. (20) now reads:
r^eD k 1 1
hD r^eD k wk

33

and the future disturbance eect predictions are, then,

given by
^eD k j j k ^eD k

1
hD
j
1
1
hD r^eD k;
hD

m16j6mN

34

The newly introduced parameter, as a replacement for a, is

required to lie between 0 and 1 by the convergence condition needed for Eq. (32). Investigating the predicted composite disturbance eect evolution at the extreme values is
particularly informative. When hD = 1, Eq. (34) predicts
that the disturbance eect will remain constant into the
future at the current estimated value ^eD k; conversely, it
can be shown that in the limit as hD ! 0, Eq. (34) predicts
a disturbance eect that will evolve into the future as an
indenitely increasing ramp. The latter will lead to a very
aggressive disturbance rejection policy and the former to
a more conservative policy. Observe therefore that hD is
a tuning parameter for determining the aggressiveness of
disturbance rejection.
Using Eq. (34), the updated N-step model output prediction is now obtained as

2.2.4. Future disturbance eect prediction

Updating the model prediction obtained in Eq. (7) requires a prediction of the future evolution of eD(k). We
use the theory of forecasting of time series [20] to obtain
the desired predictions ^eD k j j k (m + 1 6 j 6 m + N).
Since E[w(k)] = 0 (by denition), we obtain, from Eq.
(20), the minimum mean square error prediction of
r^eD k 1 j k given r^eD k as

~y k m i ami ^y k ai
1 blk; m bgi uk

^eD k m i j k

r^eD k 1 j k ar^eD k

2.3. Control action calculation

28

503

35

for 1 6 i 6 N. This is a set of N equations in the single

unknown variable u(k), the current control action.

and, in general:
r^eD k j j k aj r^eD k

29

Since
j
X
l1

r^eD k l j k ^eD k j j k
^eD k

30

With the updated model prediction equation as given in

(35) above, we may now compute the single control move
u(k) required to minimize the predicted deviation of the
output from a desired trajectory over the N-step horizon
beyond the delay period. But rst, we need to specify this
reference trajectory.

504

B.A. Ogunnaike, K. Mukati / Journal of Process Control 16 (2006) 499509

If the desired set-point for the process output y(k) is

yd(k), we dene y*(k), the desired trajectory for y to follow
to this set-point, according to
y  k hT y  k
1 1
hT y d k

36

with 0 < hT < 1, i.e., we desire a rst order approach to

set-point. Without prior knowledge of future set-point
changes, by setting yd(k + j) = yd(k), we obtain
y  k j hjT y  k 1
hjT y d k;

16j61

37

Here hT is clearly the set-point tracking tuning parameter such that for hT  0, almost instantaneous response to
set-point changes is demandedan aggressive policy; conversely, hT  1 indicates a conservative set-point tracking
policy, since it requires a more sluggish approach to the
set-point. (Note that the extreme value of hT = 1 is an invalid and meaningless choice for which all set-point changes
are completely ignored.)
The control action u(k) may now be computed such that
the predicted process output deviation from the reference
trajectory is minimized over the N-step horizon beyond
the delay period, m. For a least-squares objective, the optimization problem is given by
N
X
2
min
y  k i
~y k m i
38
uk

i1

By dening
ri k y  k i
~y k m i;

39

we obtain from the updated model prediction equation

(35):
ri k y  k i
ami ^y k
ai
1 blk; m
bgi uk

^eD k m i j k

40

or,
ri k wi k
bgi uk

41

where
wi k y  k i
ami ^y k
ai
1 blk; m

^eD k m i j k

42

represents the conditional projected errorthe performance decit that will result if u(k) = 0, i.e., it is the predicted output deviation from desired trajectory, when the
contribution from the yet undetermined control action
u(k) is excluded. From Eq. (41), we may now see that the
optimization problem posed in (38) aims to determine the
value of u(k) that best makes up the indicated performance
decit. The analytical solution to the optimization problem
is the closed-form expression:
PN
1 i1 gi wi k
uk
43
PN 2
b
i1 gi
This is the analytic expression for computing the control
action; it contains only one nal tuning parameter yet to
be speciedN, the prediction horizon length beyond the
time delay.

Since, according to the controller formulation, only a

single control move is allowed over the prediction horizon,
a choice of N = 1 results in the very aggressive deadbeat
control strategy while an innite horizon N = 1 results
in a conservative open-loop control strategy. Clearly then
the prediction horizon inuences the overall aggressiveness
of the controller.
Let us now dene an auxiliary tuning parameter hA such
that:
1
hA e

N
1Dt
s

44

where s is the process time constant and Dt is the sampling

time. Observe that this parameter is normalized to lie between 0 and 1; furthermore, for N = 1, (deadbeat control)
hA = 0; and conversely for N = 1, (open loop control)
hA = 1. This parameter may therefore be used to specify
the overall aggressiveness desired of the controller and
the corresponding horizon length computed from the complementary expression
N 1

s
ln1
hA
Dt

45

Thus, hA  0 will result in a small horizon length (aggressive controller) and hA  1 will yield a conservative controller employing a long prediction horizon.
Thus with the analytic expression in Eq. (43), the RTDA controller computes, at each time instant k, the control
action required to minimize, over an extended horizon of
length N (as determined by the tuning parameter hA), the
deviation of the predicted process output from the desired
trajectory (as determined by the tuning parameter hT), after
the output prediction has been updated to reect the eect
of plant/model mismatch (as determined by the parameters
hR to estimate the disturbance eect, and hD to predict its
evolution into the future), and conditioned on the fact that
only one control move is allowed over the entire horizon
length.
As with other model predictive control schemes, the
strategy is to carry out the computation indicated in Eq.
(43) at every time instant, in a receding horizon fashion
[13,14].
2.4. Control scheme summary and discussion
We now summarize the key aspects of the control
scheme presented above.
2.4.1. Requirements
(1) Process model
gs

Ke
as
ss 1

46

(obtainable from a process reaction curve; identical

information used for PID controller tuning).

B.A. Ogunnaike, K. Mukati / Journal of Process Control 16 (2006) 499509

(2) Control system specications

Sampling time, Dt (specied by control engineer).
Discretized model parameters (a, b, m) (determined
from model parameters and Dt using Eq. (3)).
Tuning parameters for each controller performance attribute: 0 < hR < 1 for robustness;
0 < hT < 1 for set-point tracking; 0 < hD < 1 for
disturbance rejection; and 0 < hA < 1 for overall
aggressiveness. (specied by control engineer;
strictly excludes extreme values of 0 and 1; for
the particular attribute in question, small values
0 yield aggressive performance; large values 1
yield conservative performance).
(3) Control computation
P
1 Ni1 gi wi k
uk
47
PN 2
b
i1 gi
Fixed components:
N: prediction horizon length; determined by hA
from Eq. (45),
b: process parameter,
gi: process parameter (from Eq. (8)).
Time varying component: wi(k), the conditional projected error, determined from Eq. (42); with three
contributing components:
(a) projected eect of past control action (uses model
parameters a, b and m, and Eqs. (2) and (5));
(b) projected eect of unmeasured disturbances (uses
hR to determine ^eD k, Eq. (26); and hD to predict
^eD k i j k given ^eD k), Eq. (32);
(c) reference trajectory (uses hT and Eq. (37)).
2.4.2. Discussion
The RTD-A controller discussed above may be related
to other schemes to put its performance characteristics in
perspective.
1. Minimum variance controller
By selecting N = 1 (or equivalently hA = 0), the RTD-A
control law reduces to
1
uk y  k 1
am1 ^y k
blk; m
b

^eD k m 1 j k
48
which is an expression of the so-called minimum-variance controller with explicit prediction for time-delay
compensation [23, Chapter 12]. (It should be noted that
for various simple linear process models, and an Integrated
Moving Average IMA(1,1) disturbance model, the resulting minimum variance controllers have been shown to be
standard PID controllers [24,25].)
2. Steady state IMC
It can be shown that


1
a
lim uk
49
fy d
^eD 1g
N !1
b
and for the particular choice of hD = 1,
^eD 1 ^eD k
50

505

and the resulting controller is immediately recognizable as

the steady state IMC controller. As with standard IMC, it
is easy to show that the RTD-A controller is nominally
stable for all admissible parameter values 0 < hR, hT, hD,
hA < 1.
3. Kalman ltering
The determination of eD(k) estimates from the model
error e(k) as presented for the RTD-A controller is reminiscent of an interpretation of Kalman ltering that has been
pointed out by others (for example: [26,27]).
3. Illustrative examples
The key characteristics of the RTD-A controller are:
(1) Simplicity: It employs precisely the same FOPDT
process characterization used to tune PID controllers;
and it computes control action from an analytical
expression that is trivial to implement.
(2) Transparent tuning: Its tuning parameters are directly
related to the performance attributes of robustness,
set-point tracking and disturbance rejection, with an
auxiliary parameter for overall controller aggressiveness. The parameters, all bounded between 0 and 1,
can be tuned for each performance attribute independently and transparently, with increasing conservativeness as the parameter values approach 1.
(3) Improved performance: Because of its predictive formulation, and its systematic approach to disturbance
estimation, it delivers improved performance especially for dead-time dominated processes and for processes with noisy measurements.
We now use several examples to illustrate these characteristics and practical implementation.
3.1. Transparent tuning
When a process with the model
gs

e
s
2s 1

51

is subjected to a unit step change in set-point at t = 0, and a

step disturbance of
1 at t = 10, the performance of the
RTD-A controller is shown in Fig. 1 to demonstrate how
the tuning parameters directly inuence control system performance. The sampling time, Dt, for the digital implementation is 0.1. In each case only one parameter is varied
while the others are kept constant at the arbitrarily chosen
value of 0.3. Observe how the controller becomes more
conservative as each respective tuning parameter is increased from 0 to 1. Fig. 1(a) shows the performance
under a (worst-case) 10% plant/model mismatch in all
three parameters, to demonstrate the eect of hR on robustness; the remaining plots are for nominal performance (no
plant/model mismatch). Note in particular how, in (b) and
(c), it is possible to inuence set-point tracking and

506

B.A. Ogunnaike, K. Mukati / Journal of Process Control 16 (2006) 499509

1.6
1.2
1.4

Process Output

Process Output

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4

T=D=A=0.3

=0.3
R
=0.6
R
R=0.9

0.2
0

Setpoint tracking

Robustness

10

(a)

15

0.8
0.6
0.4

R=D=A=0.3
T=0.1
T=0.9
T=0.95

0.2
0

20

(b)

Time

10

15

20

25

Time

1.4
1.2
Overall aggressiveness

Disturbance rejection

1.2

Process Output

Process Output

1
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
R= T= A=0.3

0.6
0.4
R=D= T=0.3

D=0.01
D=0.1
=0.9

0.2

0.8

0
0

(c)

10

15

20

A=0.1
A=0.5
=0.9

0.2
0

25

Time

10

(d)

15

20

25

Time

Fig. 1. Eect of tuning parameters on controller performance attributes. The arrows indicate the direction of increasing parameters.
15

NAMW.
Kg/Kmol (x103)

disturbance rejection directly and independently. In (d),

note how, independently of the specic choices for the disturbance rejection and set-point tracking parameters, the
overall speed of response is inuenced by hA.

1:2  106 e
0:16s

52
0:23s 1
obtained from the process response to a step change of
0.005 m3/h in the initiator ow rate (see Fig. 2) is used
g1 s

5
True process
FOPDT fit
0
0

0.5

1.5
Time. hour

2.5

0.5

1.5
Time. hour

2.5

0.02

Initiator flow rate. m /hr

3.2. Implementation
The procedure for implementing the RTD-A controller
is now illustrated via simulation on a process of industrial relevance. The process in question is the isothermal
polymerization reactor discussed in Maner et al. [28], where
initiator ow rate is used to control number average
molecular weight (NAMW). The nonlinear, four-state,
state-space model (available in the cited reference) is used
to represent the true plant. Since measurements of actual
NAMW are not available on-line, we consider instead the
more practical case where an on-line viscometer provides
a surrogate measurement that correlates well with NAMW,
but with a modest measurement delay of 0.1 h.
The approximate FOPDT model

10

0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0

Fig. 2. FOPDT model t from step response for the polymerization

process.

for controller design; the sampling time is chosen as

Dt = 0.01 h.
The controller performance is investigated under the following conditions: beginning from an initial operating steady state value of 25,000 in NAMW and 0.017 m3/h in
initiator ow rate, a set-point change of 15,000 in NAMW
is made at t = 0 h (to illustrate servo control); and a distur-

B.A. Ogunnaike, K. Mukati / Journal of Process Control 16 (2006) 499509

bance in the form of a one-third reduction in monomer

concentration is introduced at t = 0 h (to illustrate regulatory control). Note that these changes are suciently signicant to produce nonlinear responses from the process.
The performance of the RTD-A controller is compared
with that of an IMC tuned PID controller (IMC-PID) [25].
The tuning parameters chosen for the RTD-A controller
for the servo control simulation are: hR = 0.99, hT = 0.1,
hD = 0.01, hA = 0.9; and for the IMC-PID controller (with
k = 0.2): Kc =
7.1759 106, sI = 0.31, sd = 0.0594. The
results are shown in Fig. 3(a). The tuning parameters chosen for the RTD-A controller for the regulatory control
simulation are: hR = 0.9, hT = 0.1, hD = 0.01, hA = 0.5;
and for the IMC-PID controller (with k = 0.05): Kc =

1.2 106, sI = 0.31, sd = 0.0594. The results are shown
in Fig. 3(b).
First, note that the RTD-A controller is tuned aggressively for both set-point tracking (hT = 0.1) and disturbance rejection (hD = 0.01), and the same values were
used for both the servo- and regulatory control simulations.
As noted earlier, the set-point change of 15,000 kg/kmol in

NAMW takes the process signicantly far from its original

operating condition; because the process is nonlinear, the
simple linear model approximation will not be very good
over such a large operating range. Thus a high value is selected for hR (0.99) for increased robustness, and the overall controller is kept conservative by also choosing a high
value for hA (0.9). For disturbance rejection, on the other
hand, the process is operating reasonably close to its original steady state; the conservative robustness parameter is
relaxed only slightly (hR = 0.9), but the controller can afford to be more aggressive overall, as reected in the reduction in the value chosen for hA (0.5).
While it can be seen from Fig. 3 that the RTD-A controller provides better set-point tracking as well as disturbance rejection than the IMC tuned PID, it is more
important to appreciate how very easy, transparent, and
intuitive it is to tune the RTD-A controller for the appropriate circumstance.
Eect of noise: When 5% zero-mean white noise is introduced in the process output for the same conditions investigated previously in Fig. 3, the results are shown in Fig. 4.

NAMW. Kg/Kmol

4
3.5
3
2.5

Initiator flow rate. m3/hr

x 10

0.5

1.5
Time. hour

0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0

0.5

(a)

1.5
Time. hour

2.5

2.6
2.4
2.2
2

2.5
Initiator flow rate. m3/hr

NAMW. Kg/Kmol

x 10

4.5

507

0.5

1.5
Time. hour

2.5

0.5

1.5
Time. hour

2.5

0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0

(b)

x 10

4
3.5
3
2.5
2
0

Initiator flow rate. m3/hr

NAMW. Kg/Kmol

4.5

0.5

1.5
Time. hour

0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0

0.5

1.5
Time. hour

2.5

x 10

2.5
2
1.5

2.5

Initiator flow rate. m3/hr

NAMW. Kg/Kmol

Fig. 3. Polymerization reactor control system response. (a) Servo control: (solid) RTD-A; (dashed) IMC-PID. (b) Regulatory control: (solid) RTD-A;
(dashed) IMC-PID.

0.5

1.5
Time. hour

2.5

0.5

1.5
Time. hour

2.5

0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0

Fig. 4. Polymerization reactor control system response: with noise. (a) Servo control: (solid) RTD-A; (dotted) IMC-PID. (b) Regulatory control: (solid)
RTD-A; (dotted) IMC-PID.

508

B.A. Ogunnaike, K. Mukati / Journal of Process Control 16 (2006) 499509

The RTD-A controller again outperforms the IMC-PID

both in set-point tracking and disturbance rejection. Note
in particular the large uctuations in the control action
for the PID controller compared to that for the RTD-A
controller. The robustness parameter hR also provides a
measure of robustness against excessive noise.
It is important to re-emphasize in closing that the main
point of this section is not so much the improved performance possible with the RTD-A controller; it is more that
the RTD-A controller tuning parameters are transparently
related to the controller attributes, scaled between 0 and 1
and are hence easier to choose logically.

realistic process has also been demonstrated via simulation on a nonlinear polymerization reactor model. The
RTD-A controller was shown to provide better set-point
tracking and disturbance rejection performance than the
IMC-tuned PID controller, with and without measurement
noise.
Several issues remain outstanding, the most important of
which include theoretical robust stability analysisspecically how the choices of various parameter values jointly
and individually aect closed-loop stabilityand the development of systematic strategies for choosing the controller
parameters. A companion paper [29] presents a complete
discussion of these and related issues, following the preliminary results contained in [16].

4. Summary and conclusions

We have proposed in this paper a novel SISO controller
schemethe RTD-A controllerhaving following salient
features:
(1) A process characterization that is precisely the same
as that employed for tuning classical PID controllers
(a FOPDT model obtainable from a process reaction curve).
(2) A formulation framework that explicitly decomposes
observed model error into separate and distinct conditional estimates of plant/model mismatch and
unmeasured disturbances, (thereby allowing one to
design independently and directly for robustness
and disturbance rejection), along with a separate,
independent set-point tracking component.
(3) A control action computation algorithm that determines, at each discrete point in time, a single control
move that minimizes the predicted deviation of the
plant output from the desired set-point over the next
N discrete steps in the future, where the value of N is
determined by the overall aggressiveness desired of
the controller.
The three primary tuning parameters, hR, hT, and hD, are
related directly to the attributes of robustness, setpoint tracking (or trajectory following), and disturbance
rejection; an auxiliary fourth parameter, hA, is related
to the overall controller aggressiveness. Moreover, the
tuning parameters are normalized to lie between 0 and 1
whereby a value near 0 signies aggressive performance in
the attribute of interest; conversely, a value near 1 signies
conservative performance. These features make the RTDA controller much easier and more transparent to tune for
each desired attribute. The optimization problem upon
which the control action computation is based can be solved
analyticallythe resulting simple, closed-form solution
making the scheme computationally simple and easily implementable in both software and hardware.
Through various simulations, we have shown that the
tuning parameters are, in fact, directly related to the
controller performance attributes. Implementation on a

References
[1] L. Desborough, R. Miller, Increasing customer value of industrial
control performance monitoringHoneywells experience, in: Proceedings of CPC VI Tucson, AZ, 2001.
[2] H. Koivo, J. Tanttu, Tuning of PID controllers: survey of SISO and
MIMO techniques, in: Proc. IFAC Intelligent Tuning and Adaptive
Control Symposium, Singapore, vol. 75, 1991, pp. 7580.
[3] P. Van Overschee, B. De Moor, The end of heuristic PID tuning, in
preprints of the IFAC Workshop on digital control: past, present and
future of PID control CBS: Terrassa, Spain, 2001, p. 687.
[4] D. Ender, Process control performance: not as good as you think,
Control Eng. (1993) 180.
[5] A.O. Dwyer, A summary of PI and PID tuning rules for processes
with time delay, Part I: PI controller tuning rules, in preprints of the
IFAC Workshop on digital control: past, present and future of PID
control, 175CBS: Terrassa, Spain, 2000.
[6] O. Lequin, M. Gevers, M. Mossberg, E. Bosmans, L. Triest, Iterative
feedback tuning of PID parameters: comparison with classical tuning
rules, Control Eng. Pract. 11 (2003) 10231033.
[7] M. Katebi, M. Moradi, Predictive PID controllers, IEE Proc.
Control Theory Appl. 148 (6) (2001).
[8] Q. Wang, C. Hang, X. Yang, Single-loop controller design via IMC
principles, Automatica 37 (2001) 20412048.
[9] I. Rusnak, Generalized PID controllers, in: The Proceedings of 7th
IEEE Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation, 1999,
mED99, Haifa, Israel.
[10] M. Grimble, H1 PID controllers, Trans. IMC 13 (5) (1991) 112
120.
[11] K. Passino, S. Yurkovich, Fuzzy Control, Addison-Wesley-Longman, Menlo Park, CA, 1998.
strom, T. Hagglund, The future of PID control, Control Eng.
[12] K. A
Pract. (2001) 11631175.
[13] M. Morari, J. Lee, Model predictive control: past, present and future,
Comput. Chem. Eng. 23 (1999) 667682.
[14] S. Qin, T. Badgwell, A survey of industrial model predictive control
technology, Control Eng. Pract. 11 (2003) 733764.
[15] B. Ogunnaike, K. Mukati, Design, development and implementation
of an alternative structure for next generation regulatory controllers,
Annual AIChE Meeting, San Francisco, CA, 2003.
[16] K. Mukati, B. Ogunnaike, Stability analysis and tuning strategies for
a novel next generation regulatory controller, in: American Control
Conference, Boston, MA, 2004.
[17] K. Mukati, B. Ogunnaike, Tuning rules for the RTDA controller,
Annual AIChE Meeting, Austin, TX, 2004.
[18] G. Pannocchia, N. Laachi, J.B. Rawlings, A fast, easily tuned, SISO,
Model Predictive Controller, DYCOPS 7, Boston, MA, 2004.
[19] M. Soroush, K. Muske, Analytical model predictive control, Prog.
Syst. Control Theory 26 (2000) 163179.

B.A. Ogunnaike, K. Mukati / Journal of Process Control 16 (2006) 499509

[20] G.E.P. Box, G.M. Jenkins, G.C. Reinsel, Time Series Analysis:
Forecasting and Control, third ed., Prentice Hall, 1994.
[21] Y. Bard, Nonlinear Parameter Estimation, Academic Press,
New York, 1974.
[22] G. Box, G. Tiao, Bayesian Inference in Statistical Analysis, Addison
Wesley, 1973.
strom, B. Wittenmark, Computer Controlled Systems: Theory
[23] K. A
and Design, Prentice-Hall International Inc., London, 1990.
[24] T. Harris, J. MacGregor, Design of multivariable linear quadratic
controllers using transfer functions, AIChE J. 33 (9) (1987) 1481
1495.
[25] B. Ogunnaike, W. Ray, Process Dynamics, Modeling and Control,
Oxford University Press, New York, 1994.

509

[26] D. Kozub, J. MacGregor, Feedback control of polymer quality in

semibatch copolymerization reactors, Chem. Eng. Sci. 47 (4) (1992)
929.
[27] D. Semino, M. Morretta, C. Scali, Parameter estimation in extended
Kalman lters for quality control in polymerization reactors, Comput. Chem. Eng. 20 (Suppl.) (1996) S913S918.
[28] B. Maner, F. Doyle, B. Ogunnaike, R. Pearson, Nonlinear model
predictive control of a simulated multivariable polymerization reactor
using second order Volterra models, Automatica 32 (9) (1996) 1285
1301.
[29] K. Mukati, B. Ogunnaike, An alternative structure for next generation regulatory controllers. Part II: Stability analysis and tuning
rules, J. Proc. Control., submitted for publication.